If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: how about..go away..

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I propose that one of two things should happen:

1. Remove the mitigation nerf.

2. We get our original good mitigation unless we have attack on, which in turn drops our mitigation down to nerfed level. This way we can actually survive a great deal more pulls, but also not be overpowered in being able to serve as a tank.<hr></blockquote>

That has to be the best proposal I've seen.

Granted I haven't read everything but that is so simple and perfect IMO.

oh boy...

Oh poor little soggie, everyone insults, every single... Oh wait... I remember a very neat post a while ago where ONE individual insulted you and you retorted back with something along these lines: 'it`s not my fault the huge majority of MB are idiots'.

So no, WE don`t like you, We don`t want you and we certainly as hell do not care what YOU have to say. Your parses are ridiculous at best, your statements have ZERO ring of truth to them, your are one of the biggest insultive troll I have seen on this forum in a long long time. OMG waiting for a reply from soggie sounding like: "OH YEAH!? Well takes one to know one!" or something as intelligent.

I have news for you Soggie, when there is a GENERAL concensus going along, where the huge majority of people agree on a point of view (like the monk nerf) and there is one or two idiot who completely disagree with the point of view, if they wanna have ANY HOPE of being taken seriously, you have to UTTERLY destroy the concensus in place with irrefutable proof (which you don`t have and never will), solid arguments (none of which you managed to bring to a believable level) and second you must have ENOUGH respect to first be seriously listened to (which you will NEVER earn at your rate).

But no. Not you, YOU, not only you encouraged the monk mitigation back then when it happened with every single moronic warrior, idiotic pallie, dumbass with 2k crits in their sig rangers and what not other legions of dolt who have NEVER touched a monk, but you LITERALY, withouth ANY intelligent back up WHATSOEVER come here afterward and question every single RESPECTABLE posters that they are idiots and YOU are the only one who is right.

Re: how about..go away..

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I asked you to post a parse. OR data. OR a fact. OR a quote. OR some evidence.

ANY OF THE ABOVE.

You choose to post none of it.<hr></blockquote>

Do you really want me to copy/paste from another link? I was once told to do the research and find parses that were in the archives. I extend the same option to you.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>If this was a real life situation and some loudmouthed jerk kept budding into the conversations my friends and I were having I would tell him to get lost.<hr></blockquote>

Last I checked this was a public forum. If you want people to stay out of "your business," use the PM's. Now you can say you learned something new today.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Soggie, a parse is a compilation of data obtained from a log.

What you posted was a log, and a very short one at that.<hr></blockquote>

And? A parse isn't fact anyways, so I suggest you move your fight in a different direction.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>2. We get our original good mitigation unless we have attack on, which in turn drops our mitigation down to nerfed level. This way we can actually survive a great deal more pulls, but also not be overpowered in being able to serve as a tank.<hr></blockquote>

That is a pretty neat idea, but it would still affect my ability to pull too much.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>So no, WE don`t like you, We don`t want you and we certainly as hell do not care what YOU have to say. Your parses are ridiculous at best, your statements have ZERO ring of truth to them, your are one of the biggest insultive troll I have seen on this forum in a long long time.<hr></blockquote>

You said it not-quite-best:

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>OMG waiting for a reply from soggie sounding like: "OH YEAH!? Well takes one to know one!" or something as intelligent.<hr></blockquote>

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I have news for you Soggie, when there is a GENERAL concensus going along, where the huge majority of people agree on a point of view (like the monk nerf) and there is one or two idiot who completely disagree with the point of view, if they wanna have ANY HOPE of being taken seriously, you have to UTTERLY destroy the concensus in place with irrefutable proof (which you don`t have and never will), solid arguments (none of which you managed to bring to a believable level) and second you must have ENOUGH respect to first be seriously listened to (which you will NEVER earn at your rate).<hr></blockquote>

I agree with this thought. The only problem with it is that the huge majority of the people that agree on the point of view (removing the nerf) are doing so without any factual evidence giving reason to reverse it. As I reitereate AGAIN, NONE of the reasons anyone has given to justify the reversal of the nerf have come with any factual basis to support it. ALL of it is speculation by every joe-shmoe that plays the game, but doesn't actually program/develop the game. ABSOLUTELY NONE of it is justified by facts.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>but you LITERALY......question every single RESPECTABLE<hr></blockquote>

Just because they're respected by you doesn't mean everything they say is fact. A high school education will help you understand this, assuming you can find one who is willing to work with someone that has the lack of intelligence you display on what seems to be a daily basis here on MB.

Re: how about..go away..

???

What's with all the Soggie bashing? I scrolled back to unearth his supposedly frightfully incedariary post that is starting all this and all he said was "undoing mitigation nerf would overpower us." Granted that is an extremely unpopular viewpoint that pretty much every single monk (even time geared monks) don't agree with, but it's hardly worth getting personal over. I think he's very wrong about the mitigation nerf, because monks have zero ability to hold agro. We have a couple tricks we can use to sort of hold it, but what we're good at is loosing agro, not keeping it or gaining it quickly. Mitigation will essentially just improve our solo ability, not our raid or grouping.

IMHO, I think the proposed changes in the original posting are a great step forward for monks. The no-rip change is simply amazing. While it will do absolutely nothing for our DPS, DPS doesn't matter. Total damage matters and this change will increase that by permitting monks to remain in contact with the mob at all times; ie. we're basically melee DOTS when it comes to damage and this increases our duration.

There is still more to do after that for monks and for other melee, but this will rectify the major raid imbalance for monks. I don't think it will do all that much for grouping, though. Group XP fights are too short to benefit much from an increased duration monk DOT; one or two more ticks won't matter all that much. I never really worry about rips much on xp anyway. Phantom wind, if done right, could fix the grouping imbalances for monks -- permiting us to serve the role of quick & precise pulling that's required for LDON/etc..

The only things that remain to be addressed are the solo'ing and trade skill imbalances, which will still be quite severe even after all these changes go live. Mitigation is one way to partially fix solo'ing. Improved existing abilities would be another (eg. perfect instill doubt with a snare). Trades are pretty easy to fix. Every single class needs the AA's to improve int/wis to 355. Also, all/all gear for raising int/wis to high levels needs to be in game. There are various other imbalances like the per-class specific trades (enc/priest), but those are relatively minor.

Re: ???

At this point soggie, you're going to have to provide links or cut and paste. For two reasons ... 1- You've never posted data, facts or quotes on this message board. And 2- I've already cut and pasted my data, and linked it. Ad nauseum.

Re: ???

Bjond, the Soggie-bashing is due to his consistent Abashi/Absor like insistence that monks are "working as intended".

He maintains this stance despite mountains of evidence ( which he simply dismisses out of hand, never deigning to provide any statistical let alone factual refutation ) to the contrary.

He maintains this stance in spite of the overwhelming disbelief of the majority of monk posters that protest, some quite rationally I might add, that this simply can't be what the monk class was "intended" to be because their enjoyment of their class was severely diminished by the changes ( which at one point he vehemently denied even happened. "What nerf?" is the exact quote. )

He maintains this in spite of having been referred several times to the class description which supposedly defines what a monk is ( at least to a brand new player ) and is literally shown point by painstaking point how we no longer fit that description.

He refuses to believe that itemization was the sole, let alone primary, cause for our nerf in the first place, despite having been repeated shown SoE's patch message which states it clearly, insisting instead that there is/are some other hidden reason for SoE to maintain the current imbalance. A hidden reason which he has provided absolutely no proof of other than his complete fanatical belief in the infallibility of SoE.

He refuses to even consider ( unless "high" ) that SoE may have actually addressed the itemization problems that caused the original problem in the loot tables in PoP, thus in essence double penalizing the monk class, insisting and exhorting us to merely accept that they "know what they're doing" in all aspects of the game, despite a long history of players eventually proving to SoE that SoE in fact had no clue on various and numerous issues.

He categorically denies that SoE has ever in the history of EQ ever made a single mistake that wasn't intentional, despite the obvious paradox inherent in such a statement.

He flat out refuses to even consider that the players of the monk class might have even the slightest advantage in understanding the day to day game play of that class when compared to the omniscient/omnipotent ( in his mind at least ) developers that code it.

Further, his delivery is quite supercilious and sarcastic ( esp when he begins to become cornered in the inconsistent twistings of his own tortured logic ), insulting everyone that disagrees with him and playing the victim when the fact of the matter is he simply loves the attention that he gets by trolling.

That is the reason for all the Soggie bashing.

Xaynn Bakkura

Iksar Monk

Just a Silly Gecko

To repeat what others have said, requires education; to challenge it, requires brains.

Re: ???

Bjond, I swear they make this shit up.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>He maintains this stance despite mountains of evidence ( which he simply dismisses out of hand, never deigning to provide any statistical let alone factual refutation ) to the contrary.<hr></blockquote>

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>He maintains this in spite of having been referred several times to the class description which supposedly defines what a monk is ( at least to a brand new player ) and is literally shown point by painstaking point how we no longer fit that description.<hr></blockquote>

I think most of us can agree that most of the BS written in the EQ manuals can't be taken very seriously. Btw, Bjond, just a little insight: These are the same monks who consistently criticize SoE when they say something is "working as intended," YET contrastly believe everything that SoE says if it has the intention of aiding their class. I guess it's easier to go thru life if you only believe what you want to.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>He refuses to believe that itemization was the sole, let alone primary, cause for our nerf in the first place, despite having been repeated shown SoE's patch message which states it clearly, insisting instead that there is/are some other hidden reason for SoE to maintain the current imbalance. A hidden reason which he has provided absolutely no proof of other than his complete fanatical belief in the infallibility of SoE.<hr></blockquote>

No....no hidden reason. I just ended up reading the patch message, where I noticed that NO WHERE in it, did SoE state that itemization was THE ONLY SOLE ENTIRE reason for the mitigation reduction.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>He refuses to even consider ( unless "high" ) that SoE may have actually addressed the itemization problems that caused the original problem in the loot tables in PoP, thus in essence double penalizing the monk class, insisting and exhorting us to merely accept that they "know what they're doing" in all aspects of the game, despite a long history of players eventually proving to SoE that SoE in fact had no clue on various and numerous issues.<hr></blockquote>

Nor did SoE ever state (in the patch message) how much value the itemization changes they planned for PoP would have when compared to the mitigation reduction.

In both cases, the majority of monks (although they aren't the ones behind the scenes) seem to think they know EXACTLY how EQ is supposed to work, and when something is right/wrong. I guess that's why these monks aren't on SoE's payroll.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>He categorically denies that SoE has ever in the history of EQ ever made a single mistake that wasn't intentional, despite the obvious paradox inherent in such a statement.<hr></blockquote>

Again, I refer you to my comment - They only believe what they want to believe, when it comes to comments from SoE.

Recent Examples:

- SoE looking into changing FD, in which wandering mobs forget about you after 2 mins of being FD - no monks complaining about the change SoE is thinking about, because they feel that having this change will allow monks to be "working as intended" from the FD standpoint.

- SoE enforcing the mitigation reduction - monks complain about the change by SoE, saying it is "ill-conceived" and "they don't know what they're doing."

Yes, SoE can make mistakes. But for 4 years, they have made more fixes than they have mistakes, yet people quickly look past those fixes and blame any negative changes to their class as "a nerf." For all ANYONE knows, the "nerfs" are balancing the game, and they are just too blind to see it.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>He flat out refuses to even consider that the players of the monk class might have even the slightest advantage in understanding the day to day game play of that class when compared to the omniscient/omnipotent ( in his mind at least ) developers that code it.<hr></blockquote>

I don't deny the idea that some of the 24/7 players may have a better general knowledge of day to day activities in the game. But when you try to dig deeper into the structure of EQ, NOBODY (yourself included) knows more about the game than the devs. I don't understand how many of the MB posters can even hold this mindset that they know more about the game than the ones that program it. Btw, his comment is assuming that the devs don't play their own game.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Further, his delivery is quite supercilious and sarcastic ( esp when he begins to become cornered in the inconsistent twistings of his own tortured logic ), insulting everyone that disagrees with him and playing the victim when the fact of the matter is he simply loves the attention that he gets by trolling.<hr></blockquote>

rofl. i won't even comment on "insulting everyone that disagrees with him." rofl.

These are the reasons that the MB community will never progress past the "i choose to melee solo against mobs that hit harder/faster and have more hps, and wonder why I can't solo effectively" stage that all other classes have seemingly progressed through 3 expansions ago. They lack alternate vision.

Re: ???

I was going to avoid this entirely, but MY GOD! After ALL the made up, pulled out of your A$$ crap you've posted in the past 2 months Soggie, this statement really cracked me up.

Bjond, it's not just Soogie's one post here that garners all this ire. If you really want to subject yourself the the idiocy that is Soggie, I suggest you just do a user ID search in General, and you can read all his baseless a$$umtions and Soggie's pointless 'flip/flop' argument style for yourself.

Re: oh boy...

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Soggie, a self-righteous attitude is an indication of a troll, not someone who wants to discuss issues. Instead of discussing topic, you discuss the posters who flame you<hr></blockquote>

Let it end at that. Thats exactly how it works and thats why the Soggie bashing should stop. Get this thread back to where it belongs and leave em alone. His opinion isnt wrong. None of us agree with him. We have all parsed/stated it. Leave it at that. We are not going to change his mind. Dont let him ruin your day.

Re: how about..go away..

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Do you really want me to copy/paste from another link? I was once told to do the research and find parses that were in the archives. I extend the same option to you.<hr></blockquote>Then you're an idiot, and here's why:

I referred you to the archives when you initially claimed that monks had never been nerfed. It was an old topic, and there is a vast amount of data gathered on it, it wasn't mass delusion. You've rescinded that claim since, but that didn't stop you from making even more bogus ones further down the line.

Any claim you make that goes against the grain is not mainstream, and therefore need to be properly supported to be considered and accepted - yet you have no such parses and logs backing your claims up. Asking someone to go dig up your "work" (or lack thereof) because I previously directed you to a 10,000 post repository that contradicted your statement dozens of times over means, like most trolls, you are choosing to throw a comment directed at you back without thinking for a second about the context in which you recieved it. You have no work (neurons committing suicide rather than operate for you does not count) and no established body of knowledge; you're just trolling.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Quote:Soggie, a parse is a compilation of data obtained from a log.

What you posted was a log, and a very short one at that.

And? A parse isn't fact anyways, so I suggest you move your fight in a different direction.<hr></blockquote>What's that phrase, "Never argue with an idiot, he'll drag you down to his level and beat you with his stupidity" ... didn't you just tell someone to go check your (nonexistant) parse?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>- SoE looking into changing FD, in which wandering mobs forget about you after 2 mins of being FD - no monks complaining about the change SoE is thinking about, because they feel that having this change will allow monks to be "working as intended" from the FD standpoint.

- SoE enforcing the mitigation reduction - monks complain about the change by SoE, saying it is "ill-conceived" and "they don't know what they're doing."<hr></blockquote>Here's another case of total ignorance on Soggie's part.

#1: The FD change is a bug fix ... it is so monks, necro, SHD don't have to /q against constant roamers (when you get to PoFire, you'll understand... or maybe not) ... the alternative is, of course, to /q. I'll wager SOE thinks (like many of us) that it's stupid, and is putting a mechanism in game so we don't have to use it. We STILL have the option of using /q instead of waiting 2 minutes, and in many cases /q is much faster for us. But it's stupid that /q is required, so SOE fixed this bug (roamers not clearing agro for FD'd people even if you wait 20 minutes) and we're glad. Kind of like when they fixed modrods, mages rejoiced. Bug Fix.

#2: Damn straight we say the mitigation nerf is ill-concieved and they didn't know what they were doing. They TRIED to hit the top 5% of monks (their stated goal; endgame monks tanked too well) and ended up doing the most damage to the lower 95% of monks (not their goal - and you'll note they later posted that the nerf didn't have the effect they wanted, and they rescinded it somewhat). A proposed alternative was to remove the mitigation AA from monks (CS3) but that was ignored. As a result, lower level monks get hurt the most by this nerf, since they have the least HP/AC. AC for monks is not useful past 1300, as Brodda's parses have shown (or not shown, if you're Soggie and manage to state in the same post "Parses aren't fact" and "Go find my parses"; see above.) so really all that we have to look forward to on endgame gear is ATK, HP, resists and weapons (/Wubao).

Soggie, a self-righteous attitude is an indication of a troll, not someone who wants to discuss issues. Instead of discussing topic, you discuss the posters who flame you. Instead of weighing the effect of the nerf, you hypothesize what SOE is thinking - and claim others cannot speak for SOE in the next breath. Instead of providing evidence, you fabricate hypotheses that you believe pass for evidence, then claim evidence is worthless in the next breath. (Well, yours is!)

Re: how about..go away..

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Any claim you make that goes against the grain is not mainstream, and therefore need to be properly supported to be considered and accepted<hr></blockquote>

Ssarvhok, any claim you guys have made here on MB has been entirely speculation, and therefore has no more validity than opposing claims I make. Parses don't count as fact, which is what 99% of the people on this board use to support their arguments. They might as well just make shit up.

What's that phrase, "Never argue with an idiot, he'll drag you down to his level and beat you with his stupidity" ... didn't you just tell someone to go check your (nonexistant) parse?<hr></blockquote>

Whether or not I feel parses are fact or not, does not mean anything in this argument. He asked for a compilation of parses/logs I posted, and I told him to find it himself, just as I was told to do. Obviously he feels that finding my parses will mean something - more power to him. However, even though they are my parses, I hold very little faith in them, because they are, after all, parses. Parses (yours or mine) aer not fact. Some people asked me to parse results, so I did - I am accomodating that way. However, those parses mean didly-squat in the fully picture.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>#1: The FD change is a bug fix<hr></blockquote>

ROFL. Stop right there. You are further proving my point. I guess instead of calling it greed, you'll call it a "bug fix." Use whatever terminology you want, but the fact remains that you will never be opposed to a change that makes monks easier to play. That attitude itself shows that you could never be relied on to "balance" your class, and thus negates any "unbiased feedback" you have submitted in the past.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Damn straight we say the mitigation nerf is ill-concieved and they didn't know what they were doing.<hr></blockquote>

oh boy...

Re: oh boy...

Opinions can be wrong but...its still his...you wont ever change it. And to him its not. All we can do is disagree and move on.

OPINION

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: “The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion” <hr></blockquote>

Re: oh boy...

Actually, his opinion is wrong, Samoa.

I happen to be a software developer. I've been in the job field for over 10 years, professionally.

I know the code that I write, inside and out. I know the code that I have to fix, inside and out. I can find any reported duplicatible bug in a matter of hours, at the most, usually including several possible fixes.

However...

The users of the program still know more about how to use the program than I do, and they always will. They're paid to. I'm just paid to fix it/write it.

According to Soggie, NASCAR mechanics should be the ones doing the driving. After all, they have to know more about the inner workings of the car than the drivers do, right?

Said it before, but it bears repeating...

Soggie = twit

Xaynn Bakkura

Iksar Monk

Just a Silly Gecko

To repeat what others have said, requires education; to challenge it, requires brains.

Re: how does this change help?

Agro won't be an issue

At least agro won't be an issue unless you want to be the tank. A couple FD's into the fight and the only way you'll be able to get back on top again is if the MT dies. Even then, you'll have a raft of other melee dying off around you to clue you in that it's time to FD and wait until the next MT climbs on top of the agro list.

On those squeaky raid kills where you end up winning just by a smidgin of a fingernail, monks are almost always the very last class killed. We are great at loosing agro and at long duration damage. The no-rip change would further increase the duration of our damage and also give us some other very nice options, too (DP for push at any angle, for instance). I truly think that the no-rip change will fix pretty much all the raid imbalances for the monk. The only remaining issue would be for the insane melee-exluding AEs.

How would I fix that? Well, casters get a special AA that let's them have more int/wis than anyone else. I'd add an AA that permits melee have more resists in a similar manner.

Grouping can be fixed by phantom wind, if a monk can lull an entire room and then pull singles at bard rates without resting and without help from another class. Lulling just one or two with an insane cost doesn't cut it unless you also give monks other additional utility on top of that.

Solo? Well, there's a problem. It's a huge balance issue when high demand group classes can also solo xp at group rates, but then other less needed classes that require a group can't solo at all. I don't see the solo issue being adressed or even acknowledged -- probably because the first step in doing so would be to reverse the mitigation nerf and maybe even grant a mitigation bonus.

Don't think there's a solo issue? Check the total AA's on average for casters and other solo classes versus played time. Then check melee. Hell, I know a bard that went from 0 to 65 with full AA in about 3 months (well, not totally full, but all the meaningful ones). In the same time, I think I got about 10 AA. All the casters I know are down to deciding on whether they should get +STA AA or Inate metabolism. Melee are so far behind on AA it's ridiculous.

Re: Status Update

Wow, there has been some heavy debate here... Soggie...it just boggles my mind how you think the monk us "up to par" with other classes. I play eq and feel not like an outcast, but utterly useless, there is nothing that i (monks) can do that isn't done by someone else with more to offer then me. Monk can't pull LDoN and in other places they just have pally bard ect pull for paci. so where is the monk nitch....sitting next to the full group watching them get exp? i just wish that monks became a intregal part of eq yet again for thats why i played one for so long, i feel like i have wasted my time now.

Re: how does this change help?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>The no-rip change is simply amazing. While it will do absolutely nothing for our DPS, DPS doesn't matter.<hr></blockquote>

I don't agree with this statement made in an earlier post. If the Riposte Immunity goes live I think there will be a small innate increase in DPS due to our ripostes. Add in AA's like Double Riposte and Return Kick you might see a decent increase in DPS after all.

I don't have those AA's because usually I'm attacking from the rear 180 degrees of a mob but that might change. There hasn't been any parses yet of this ability on test that I've seen here so we might have to wait a bit to get any results.

Re: how does this change help?

On a slightly different subject (only read 1 or 2 pages of this thread) I don't think the mitigation nerf should be removed either. Monks shouldn't be the main tank in xp groups and I've seen Monks, prior to the nerf, tank in almost every xp zone and tank quite nicely at that.

Re: how does this change help?

I'm a mid level equiped monk and can tank acceptably in PoI, BoT and Tactics. I assume people who are better equiped (mostly a mixture of ornate and ldon guk armor) can tank even better. Acceptably being that I can hold aggro, although my DPS suffers when I do so, even with wizards and rogues in the group. Of course I'm taking more healing than a plate tank would but if our mitigation was increased I'd probably take less healing. Once a mob is slowed I can tank it pretty well and yes I can hold aggro over a slow.

Yes if I lose aggro I don't have a tool to reliably regain aggro but isn't that a Warrior's complaint too?

Re: how does this change help?

Before the nerf, you saw monks tanking in xp zones where the hardest mobs had a max hit in the mid 200s and the average xp mob hit for about 170 max. In PoP, tier one trash hits for 300-500. Since PoP, he average AC per non-jewelery slot has gone down, by as much as 50% at the high end, and monks hit a point of diminishing returns at <1350 AC (according to Thep's parses, which all ran over 2000 swings). In the mid to mid-high game, monks don't have the HPs or AAs to tank even if they mitigated like knights at equal AC. We also lack snap agro or any tools to relaibly regain agro once we've lost it, except through melee.

The point is, it's a completely different environment now, and it's not one that monks can tank under any but the most favorable of conditions.

Re: how does this change help?

Ever watch how many heals a warrior with decent gear needs in those zones you just mentioned? 1 per every 2 or 3 mobs or so. How many heals do I need tanking in BoT...bout 2 per mob. Can I tank in those zones...yep. Is it a very good idea to have a class that cant hold aggro and needs quite a bit more healing tanking when I can just get a plate tank? Nope.

Any class in the game can tank a slowed move tier 3 or lower. Take it up a notch and only plate classes can get the job done adequately.

Even with a mitigation nerf repealed our tanking wouldnt improve all that much. Still be able to tank in the same zones that we do now. Maybe only need 1 CH per mob but still no where near a comparably equipped warrior. But...it certainly would give us something to do while LFG as in it would allow us to solo in SOME places. Tier 1 efficiently at least. Tier 2 depending on gear.

Re: how does this change help?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I'm a mid level equiped monk and can tank acceptably in PoI, BoT and Tactics. I assume people who are better equiped (mostly a mixture of ornate and ldon guk armor) can tank even better. Acceptably being that I can hold aggro, although my DPS suffers when I do so, even with wizards and rogues in the group. Of course I'm taking more healing than a plate tank would but if our mitigation was increased I'd probably take less healing. Once a mob is slowed I can tank it pretty well and yes I can hold aggro over a slow.<hr></blockquote>

I'd like to see the magelo of the monk you don't even mention in your sig that tanks in BoT. . . What are you talking about tanking anyway, the DCable kaals? I've seen a well geared Pally or Warrior go down before slow could land on Ymir, and a militis will force me to feign in a single bad round.

You may have noticed that they gave warriors a reliable agro skill, as well as increased mitigation recently.

Re: Status Update

God I hate to dredge this up after this topic has been dead for so long ... HOWEVER ... I FINALLY got a straight answer to a question that I started asking when this "debate" got going regarding Leggings of Fiery Star.

I've never seen them drop my entire time in VT. Which to date is only 5 or 6 clearings. So I figured, eh, there's a bunch of items I haven't seen drop, so maybe I'm just not lucky.

So I asked around.

FINALLY, it was revealed to me that when VT was tweaked early on and loots were changed, Leggings of Fiery Star were REMOVED from the game. In other words, they no longer drop.

Sooooooooo ... alllllllllll of that bullshit with Leggings of Fiery Star were all for naught. They don't drop anymore. Thus there will be NO MONKS foregoing Ton Po's for Fiery Star Leggings. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.